It must be noted, however, that this majority report is not the only report to have come down to us from Christian antiquity. Skepticism about whether the Apostle John authored the Book of Revelation surfaced in the middle of the third century, when Dionysius of Alexandria argued that the Greek idiom of Revelation differs so markedly from the other writings of John that it could not have been penned by the same author. He also noted that several key concepts in John's writings are absent from Revelation (e.g., life, truth, grace, joy) and that this absence weighs against a common authorship of Revelation and the other NT books attributed to the apostle (for the arguments of Dionysius, see Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 7, 25). Most modern scholars agree with this assessment and therefore discount the tradition that connects Revelation to John the Apostle. Alternative theories of authorship have thus been formulated, though no consensus has been reached. The John of Revelation has been identified as (1) John the Baptist, (2) John Mark, the author of the Second Gospel, (3) an unknown prophet from Palestine named John, (4) John the Presbyter, a figure that some ancient writers contend was a contemporary of the Apostle John in Ephesus, and (5) an unidentified writer who used the apostle's name as a pseudonym in order to lend authority to his work. In the main, critical scholarship is content to think of the author of Revelation as a Christian prophet about whom nothing else is known.

Unfortunately, these alternative proposals require varying degrees of imagination and conjecture and are not without problems of their own. Hence there are still scholars who find the tradition of apostolic authorship historically credible and who argue that reasonable explanations can be given for the differences between Revelation and the other Johannine writings. Among the features of the book that fit well with the thesis of apostolic authorship, consider the following. (1) The mere mention of the name "John" without further specification suggests that the author was well known and had no need to assert his credentials or authority (1:1). It is assumed that readers would know who he was and would accept his words of instruction and correction without question. Conversely, if someone had simply been using the name John as a pseudonym, he would most likely have attached a title such as "apostle", lest it be unclear to readers whose authority was being invoked under that name. (2) The seven churches from Asia Minor addressed in Rev 2-3 are all within the region of Ephesus in Asia Minor where tradition says the Apostle John ministered in the later years of his life. (3) It is undeniable that the Book of Revelation reads quite differently from the Gospel and epistles of John. In itself, this does not rule out the possibility that a single author is responsible for all the books in question; after all, one should not expect works written in different literary genres to be very similar. But discrepancies in writing style and theological concepts are not so easily explained. This problem is especially acute for those scholars who assume all the writings traditionally ascribed to John to have been composed near the end of the first century. However, if Revelation appeared in the late 60s (as argued below), then as many as 30 years could stand between it and the publication of the Gospel and epistles in the late 90s. This could well explain why Revelation is written in a rough and heavily Semitic Greek, whereas the Gospel and epistles are written in smoother and more accurate Greek, yet still with a noticeable Semitic flavor. Such stylistic improvement is precisely the scenario one would expect from a Semitic speaker who learned Greek as a second language and whose command of its native idioms increased over the course of many years. As for theological concepts, it is true, as pointed out by Dionysius, that several key themes in the Fourth Gospel are not found in Revelation. Even so, this is not proof against their common authorship, for it is uncertain how much freedom the author of Revelation had in shaping the account of his visions. Presuming that he actually saw what he wrote down and that the prophetic and apocalyptic scenes he describes are not reducible to a literary device, we have little reason to think that the visionary had enough creative license to allow him to showcase his favorite theological concepts. Given this situation, it is remarkable that Revelation does share a number of common elements with the other Johannine writings, particularly the Gospel of John, that have no parallel in other NT writings. These include calling Jesus "the Word" (19:13; Jn 1:1, 14); describing the spiritual blessings of Jesus as "living water" (Rev 7:17; Jn 7:38); referring to Mary, the Mother of Jesus, as "woman" (Rev 12:1; Jn 19:26); and appealing to Zech 12:10 in reference to Jesus as the "pierced" Messiah (Rev 1:7; Jn 19:37).

None of the above considerations is sufficient by itself to support the apostolic authorship of Revelation. It is, rather, their cumulative force that is significant. Though one alleged author or another might seem plausible on the basis of a portion of the evidence, the apostle himself appears to correspond with all the evidence better than any other. Couple this with the widespread testimony of the early Church, and we continue to have solid reasons for attributing Revelation to the Apostle John.

Date No background information is more critical to the interpretation of Revelation than the date when the book was written. After all, much of its meaning is determined by the historical events and circumstances that John purports to explain. For the most part, ancient and modern scholars are divided between two alternatives: a clear majority date the book in the mid 90s of the first century, and a significant minority date it in the late 60s. (1) The majority view dates Revelation near the end of the reign of Emperor Domitian (A.D. 81 to 96). Support for this date is attested by ancient writers, including St. Irenaeus (A.D. 180), Victorinus of Pettau (A.D. 270), and St. Jerome (A.D. 370). Most modern scholars adopt this view, as well, and explain the symbolism of the book in terms of Christianity's life-and-death struggle with imperial Rome in the late first century. The demise of the harlot city in Rev 17-18 is often interpreted as God's judgment on pagan Rome. (2) The minority view dates Revelation near the end of the reign of Emperor Nero or shortly thereafter (A.D. 54 to 68). Ancient testimony to this date comes from the titles of Syriac versions of Revelation, which claim that John received these visions after being sent to the island of Patmos by Caesar Nero. Also, Andreas of Caesarea, a bishop in Cappadocia in the fifth century, says that several scholars in his day both dated and interpreted the Book of Revelation in connection with the Roman siege and destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Scholars who embrace this earlier date usually explain the theme of Christian suffering in terms of Jewish opposition to the gospel as well as the Neronian persecution that erupted in the mid 60s. They tend to see the fiery destruction of the harlot city in Rev 17-18 as the fall of Jerusalem. Despite the majority view, which puts the composition of Revelation around A.D. 96, much of the internal evidence can be read to support a date before A.D. 70. All things considered, a date around A.D. 68 may be said to bring the greatest amount of clarity to the otherwise bewildering visions of the book.

Literary Background Revelation is the only book of its kind in the New Testament. On the one hand, it is a work of Christian prophecy that has much in common with the prophetic books of the Old Testament, especially Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Zecha-riah. On the other, it is also an apocalyptic book with clear affinities to Jewish religious writings called apocalypses, which date from the same general time period (e.g., 1 Enoch, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, Apocalypse of Abraham). These works display a comparable range of cosmic symbolism, heavenly visions, judgment scenes, and angelic mediators. Still, the Book of Revelation differs from its Jewish counterparts on several points. (1) Its author, John, writes in his own name (Rev 1:1) rather than using the name of a revered figure from the past, such as Enoch, Ezra, or Baruch. (2) Its focus on the triumph of Jesus Christ, the slain and risen Lamb, is utterly unique when compared to other apocalyptic writings (5:6-8; 19:11-21). (3) It makes unprecedented use of liturgical hymns in revealing the worship that takes place in heaven (4:8, 11; 5:9-10, 13; 11:17-18; 15:3-4, etc.).

Being dominated by apocalyptic and prophetic symbolism, the Book of Revelation is notoriously difficult to interpret. Even St. Jerome, the most learned biblical scholar in the early Church, was compelled to admit that the Revelation of John "has as many mysteries as words" (Letters 53, 8). Its visions of hideous beasts and terrifying judgments seem part of a nightmare, while its scenes of worship, victory, and everlasting happiness seem part of a dream come true. These many sights and sounds are heavy with meaning, not least because John has worked a myriad of Old Testament allusions into the wording and structure of the book that constantly call readers back to the prophesies and types of biblical history. For these reasons, the book does not yield its secrets without effort. Only after prolonged study and contemplation of its mysteries in the light of Christian faith does one discover the powerful message of Revelation. Even then, many things remain obscure and invite us to further prayer and reflection about their intended meaning.

Interpretive Views Interpretations of Revelation usually follow one of five approaches that seek to explain the book by placing it within a particular frame of reference. (1) The critical view held by many scholars today situates the book within the cultural and historical context of its original readers. They tend to see in Revelation a reflection of the struggle between Church and State at the end of the first century. Its visions of judgment are often read as a Christian protest against the arrogance of secular Roman power and its pretensions to divine honor. So understood, the book proclaims that God will inevitably triumph over every human institution that opposes him and uses its authority for evil. (2) The preterist view likewise maintains that much of the book concerns events within the lifetime of its original readers. Scholars of this persuasion often assert that Revelation describes both the beginning of the New Covenant, sealed by the dying and rising of Christ, and the dramatic end of the Old Covenant, attested a generation later by the destruction of Jerusalem and the cessation of its Temple worship. The book is said to proclaim Christianity as the grand fulfillment of Old Testament hopes and the inauguration of salvation history's final and climactic phase. (3) The historicist view claims that Revelation offers a panorama of the Church's life as she marches through history. The successive visions of the book are said to correspond to successive stages of the Church's pilgrimage in the world, and its symbols are taken to represent important figures and institutions that determine the course of that history on a grand scale. In this view, the scope of the book can be said to encompass all of salvation history rather than to focus on a particular point in history. (4) The idealist view asserts that Revelation uses signs and symbols to dramatize the never-ending struggles of the spiritual life. Its visions of war between good and evil, angels and demons, etc., are said to represent the conflict that rages in every Christian's life. Though some would allow that Revelation refers to concrete events in the author's day, these are thought to typify the spiritual struggles between the Church and the world more generally. In this interpretation, Revelation offers a timeless message rather than a temporal message restricted to events of either the past or the future. (5) The futurist view, which seems to hold the greatest fascination in the popular mind, interprets the book as a preview of the end of history, the return of Christ, the Last Judgment, and the final demise of evil. Advocates thus claim that Revelation, either in whole or in part (e.g., chaps. 4-22), remains a book of prophecy for the Church today, for its many visions and promises still await their fulfillment in the days ahead.

In the final analysis, all these perspectives have something to offer and draw attention to important aspects of Revelation. What is needed is an integrative view that recognizes the presence of multiple themes and perspectives that complement one another and add richness and depth to the book. Christianity's struggle against the mighty Roman Empire is certainly part of the picture, as are the spiritual challenges to faith and fidelity that confront believers bombarded by the claims of the world. So too, one can hardly deny that Revelation offers a message of ultimate hope that looks ahead to the consummation of history and the heavenly glorification of the saints. Less commonly appreciated is the attention Revelation gives to the First Coming of Christ, whose death and Resurrection constitute the theological basis of the book, as well as the coming of Christ in judgment against unbelieving Jerusalem, which was known to the early Christians as the city "where their Lord was crucified" (11:8). «

||    The Orthodox Faith (Dogma)    ||    Family and Youth    ||    Sermons    ||    Bible Study    ||    Devotional    ||    Spirituals    ||    Fasts & Feasts    ||    Coptics    ||    Religious Education    ||    Monasticism    ||    Seasons    ||    Missiology    ||    Ethics    ||    Ecumenical Relations    ||    Church Music    ||    Pentecost    ||    Miscellaneous    ||    Saints    ||    Church History    ||    Pope Shenouda    ||    Patrology    ||    Canon Law    ||    Lent    ||    Pastoral Theology    ||    Father Matta    ||    Bibles    ||    Iconography    ||    Liturgics    ||    Orthodox Biblical topics     ||    Orthodox articles    ||    St Chrysostom    ||   

||    Pope Shenouda    ||    Father Matta    ||    Bishop Mattaous    ||    Fr. Tadros Malaty    ||    Bishop Moussa    ||    Bishop Alexander    ||    Habib Gerguis    ||    Bishop Angealos    ||    Metropolitan Bishoy    ||

||    Prayer of the First Hour    ||    Third Hour    ||    Sixth Hour    ||    Ninth Hour    ||    Vespers (Eleventh Hour)    ||    Compline (Twelfth Hour)    ||    The First Watch of the midnight prayers    ||    The Second Watch of the midnight prayers    ||    The Third Watch of the midnight prayers    ||    The Prayer of the Veil    ||    Various Prayers from the Agbia    ||    Synaxarium